________________
AUGUBT, 1905.]
BOOK-NOTICE.
195
Hyderabad ; ... A Muck, 13, i, o. o. Babau- Hydur ; ann. 1747: 8. v. Dalaway, 787, ii ; ann.
dur, 36, ii, see 156, i, footrote, c. v. Custard- 1755: 8.. Sipahselar, 637, ii; ann. 1756: Apple, 221, i, s. o. Deccan, 283, i, .. v. Hooka, 8. o. Carcana, 125, ii ; ann. 1758: 8. v. Byde 382, ii, 8. v. Resident, 576, ii, 8. o. Sipahselar, Horse, 105, i; ann. 1781 : $. v. Daróga, 637, ii, see 694, ii, footnote, 8. v. Tippoo 230, ii. Sahib, 704, 1, 8. v. Nizam, The, 880, i, 3 times ; Hydurabád; ann. 1802: 3. v. Coast, The, 172, i. ann. 1803 : *. v. Mogul, 437, i.
Hydur Sahib; ann. 1704: 8. v. Naik (b), 470, ii. Hyder Ali; 8. o. Bahaudar, 36, ii, 87, ii, s. v. Hyems; ann. 1691: 8. v. Winter, 740, ii, twice.
Buxee, 103, ii, s. v. Byde Horse, 105, i, Hyena; ann. 80-90 : 8. v. Tiger, 702, i. 3 times, a.v. Myaore Thorn, 467, i, a.v. Seringa- Hylobates hoolook ; 8. v. Hooluck, 323, i. patam, 615, ii; ann. 1781 : 8.0. Bahaudur, Hylobates hooluck; ann. 1884: 8. v. Hooluck, 37, ii; ann. 1814. 8. D. Zamorin, 746, 1.
323, i. Hyder 'Ali; 8. o. Sanám, 597, i; ann. 1783: Hypasis; ann. 1753: 8. 6. Sutledge, 859, ii, 8. v. Ghee, 282, ii.
8 times. Hyder Ali Khan; ann. 1704: 8. v. Naik (b), Hyperanthera Moringa ; 8. v. Horse-radish tree, 470, ij.
324, ii.
(To be continued.)
BOOK-NOTICE.
TO EARLY HISTORY OF INDIA from 600 B. c. to details, as a rapid bat valuable summary of a the Muhammadan Conquest, including the invasion lengthy period of Indian history that has not been of Alexander the Great. By VINCENT A. SMITH. handled since Lassen's time (Ind. Alterthumsk. 300 pp. The Clarendon Press, Oxford: 1904.
Vol. II., 1874, and Vol. III., 1858), the work will The great advances made in our knowledge of be found useful to the scholar as well as to the the early history of India during the last thirty- | general reader. five years have been obtained almost entirely On details, many will be found to differ from from the careful study of inscriptions, with some Mr. Smith, who sometimes deals in a rather additions, however, from coins and literary docu- summary way with older scholars. Thus, on ments; and the time had arrived to take stock of p. 279-80. with referencat
p. 279-80, with reference to a statement in Hiuen that knowledge. Duff's "Chronology of India" Teang respecting the kingdom of Mo-la-p'o, (1899) and Kielhorn's chronologically arranged which has perplexed all the editors, he assumes Asts of the Inscriptions of Northern and Southern that it has been subjected to serious misinterIndia (Epigraphia Indica, Vols. V. and VII.) pretation by several eminent scholars. The bed classified the materials for a systematic treat- Ohinese syllables have been naturally transcribed ment of the results. And Mr. V.Smith has essayed as Malava. But, if meant for Mälwa, the position the task of working them into a general account of the country is wrongly indicated in the text. of early Indian history. This he has succeeded And Mr. Smith, disregarding Hiuen Teang's in doing with undeniable skill and in a fluent and
distance of 2000 li, as well as the transliteration, pleasing style. Dr. McCrindle in his "Invasion
places it not more than 500 li north-west of of India by Alexander” supplied the general Broach, where no trace has been found of & reader with a very full account of the materials district ever called by & name that could possibly bearing on that event; and in this volume be represented by the Chinese Mo-la-p'o. Then, Mr. V. Smith has devoted a very large section the editors are accused of pressing the pilgrim's ( 66 pages out of 357) to a summary of that mention of Siladitya of Mo-la-p'o into the service Gampaign, though it had no real influence (p. 105, of the general history of India "in an unjustifi209 f.) on later Indian history. And though, inable manner." Dr. Hoernle, being "misled," like Opposition to Piscbel, Sylvain Levi, and others, Dr. Stein, "has permitted himself to indulge in the author holde, with some scholars, that the much fanciful Apeculation;" Mar Müller "was Indian drama is derived from the Greek, he is also led astray” by the blunder, due, in the first quite in accord with others in the assertion that instance, to Vivien de Saint Martin and followed
the impression made by Greek authors upon by Mr. Beal. It is hardly convincing to desert Indian literature and science is not traceable" that Dr. Stein's statement respecting Soadityauntil late period. On the whole, apart from Pratāpabila "is quite erroneous." The text of
